Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test!

A while ago, I decided to switch to MP3 music instead of CD’s, so I painstakingly ripped all my CD’s (500+) onto my computer. It’s much easier finding albums on a computer than it is sifting through piles of CD’s only to find out that I put the wrong CD in the case that I was looking for. Plus, I really love “super random” play.

Anyways, I did all my encoding at 128kbps. After I finished (a week later!), I was talking to a friend of mine who had just finished doing the same thing with all of his CD’s, except he did then at 320kbps.

He and everyone I spoke with told me that at 128kbps the audio is pretty much garbage and that I needed to do it all over again.

I thought to myself: Why didn’t I rip them at 320kbps? Now I have to deal with inferior quality music or go through the entire ripping process again!”.

Can you hear the difference?

In any case, I have a fun test for everyone: Listen to these 2 clips. One is encoded at 128kbps and the other is encoded at 320kbps (over twice the bit rate). Can you tell the difference?

505 AWESOME COMMENTS

Digitally, 320 may be better than 128, but the “naked ear” of the average music listener doesn’t possess the equipment, they don’t have a clue. During the 90’s, I worked for a DJ company that dubbed vinyl & CDs to cassettes using DBX. The cassettes were seriously analog and the dance floor did not know the difference. Now, we’re returning to vinyl, but if you don’t have a quality sound system, cartridge & stylus, combined, the sound-chain will be of sub-standard quality. Likewise, if you don’t have quality headphones or earbuds, you won’t be able to distinguish the difference between 320 & 128. For a house party or a wedding dance floor filled with drunk family, 320 vs. 128 is, “Much ado about nothing!”